[FACTS] Germany, or "Oh no not again"

I had the prosecutor's spokesman on phone today.  The result is
that someone gave a hint to the prosecutors which explicitly
mentioned Zundel, T-Online and Compuserve.  Consequently, the
prosecutors *had* to start investigations against Zundel,
T-Online and Compuserve.  In particular, they are right now
*checking* whether providing internet access is a criminal
offence due to the possibility to gain access to `inciting
material' (the German word is `Volksverhetzung') via the Net.

This means that it is not even clear whether the investigations
against internet providers will be dropped or not; in fact many
people believe that these investigatinos *will* be dropped.

My personal guess about all this is that some net.citizens are
trying to have the prosecutors engaged in absolutely absurd
investigations (or, even better, achieve a court room clash on
this subject) to get some clarification of the legal situation of
the Net in Germany.  Quite similar to the RSA T-Shirt story in
the States. ,-)

tlr

Thomas Roessler writes:
 >                      ... In particular, they are right now
 > *checking* whether providing internet access is a criminal
 > offence due to the possibility to gain access to `inciting
 > material' (the German word is `Volksverhetzung') via the Net.

If so, then this humble non-lawyer would suggest to the prosecutors
that they go after travel agencies next, because they sell airline
tickets that could be used to travel to countries where offensive
material is available.

______c_____________________________________________________________________
Mike M Nally * Tivoli Systems * Austin TX   * I want more, I want more,
       m5@tivoli.com * m101@io.com          * I want more, I want more ...
      <URL:http://www.io.com/~m101>         *_______________________________

m5@dev.tivoli.com (Mike McNally) writes:
> Thomas Roessler writes:
>  >                      ... In particular, they are right now
>  > *checking* whether providing internet access is a criminal
>  > offence due to the possibility to gain access to `inciting
>  > material' (the German word is `Volksverhetzung') via the Net.
>
> If so, then this humble non-lawyer would suggest to the prosecutors
> that they go after travel agencies next, because they sell airline
> tickets that could be used to travel to countries where offensive
> material is available.

Isn't there something in U.S. Code about crossing state lines
for immoral purposes?

(While I'm thoroughly disgusted by the German government's censorship,
let's not forget that the U.S. is no paradigm of freedom either.)

---

Dr. Dimitri Vulis
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Mon, 29 Jan 1996, Dr. Dimitri Vulis wrote:

> Isn't there something in U.S. Code about crossing state lines
> for immoral purposes?

No relevance here.  Originally enacted to combat the "white 
slavery" trade, it was probably used more to prosecute unmarried
lovers for sexual activity outside of marriage.  I don't even
know if it's still on the books, but as I said, no relevance in
the current debate.


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Mon, 29 Jan 1996, Dr. Dimitri Vulis wrote:

> m5@dev.tivoli.com (Mike McNally) writes:
> > Thomas Roessler writes:
> >  >                      ... In particular, they are right now
> >  > *checking* whether providing internet access is a criminal
> >  > offence due to the possibility to gain access to `inciting
> >  > material' (the German word is `Volksverhetzung') via the Net.
> >
> > If so, then this humble non-lawyer would suggest to the prosecutors
> > that they go after travel agencies next, because they sell airline
> > tickets that could be used to travel to countries where offensive
> > material is available.
> 
> Isn't there something in U.S. Code about crossing state lines
> for immoral purposes?

Yeah -- the intent was to stop the undesirables from kidnapping the pure 
white wimmin. Hasn't been used for years, if not decades.
 
> (While I'm thoroughly disgusted by the German government's censorship,
> let's not forget that the U.S. is no paradigm of freedom either.)

It's about as close as you can get, though.

The US is the battleground because it has the power to impose its will on 
the rest of the world. Crypto controls in the US effectively mean crypto 
controls on common software worldwide.

-rich

On Mon, 29 Jan 1996, Rich Graves wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Jan 1996, Dr. Dimitri Vulis wrote:
> 
> > m5@dev.tivoli.com (Mike McNally) writes:
> > 
> > Isn't there something in U.S. Code about crossing state lines
> > for immoral purposes?
> 
> Yeah -- the intent was to stop the undesirables from kidnapping the pure 
> white wimmin. Hasn't been used for years, if not decades.

On the contrary, the Mann Act is still used occasionally to prosecute 
those who kidnap women and transport them over state lines, usually to be 
used in prostitution rings.  I've never prosecuted one, though.

EBD

Brian Davis writes:
 > > > m5@dev.tivoli.com (Mike McNally) writes:
 > > > 
 > > > ... for immoral purposes?
 > > 
 > > ... white wimmin ...
 > 
 > On the contrary ...

Not that I don't wish I could take credit for a discussion thread of
such high caliber as this, but I can't; I have no idea how my name got
glued on there.

______c_____________________________________________________________________
Mike M Nally * Tivoli Systems * Austin TX   * I want more, I want more,
       m5@tivoli.com * m101@io.com          * I want more, I want more ...
      <URL:http://www.io.com/~m101>         *_______________________________

On Tue, 30 Jan 1996, Mike McNally wrote:

> 
> Brian Davis writes:
>  > > > m5@dev.tivoli.com (Mike McNally) writes:
>  > > > 
>  > > > ... for immoral purposes?
>  > > 
>  > > ... white wimmin ...
>  > 
>  > On the contrary ...
> 
> Not that I don't wish I could take credit for a discussion thread of
> such high caliber as this, but I can't; I have no idea how my name got
> glued on there.

I suspect that you had a comment on the thread before it went so far 
astray and that I screwed up the attributions ... Sorry.

EBD